FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 1907
THE FIRST WOMAN'S PARLIAMENT IN THE CAXTON HALL AND THE SENDING OUT
OF THE MOUNTED POLICE TO DRIVE AWAY THE WOMEN'S DEPUTATION. MR.
DICKINSON'S BILL AND THE SECOND WOMEN'S PARLIAMENT.
And now again the thoughts of all the women who wanted votes were
turning towards the opening of Parliament. The old fashioned
Suffragists had held their demonstration during the recess but that
of the Suffragettes was still to come and it had been announced that
on February 13th, 1907, a Parliament of women would sit in the Caxton
Hall to consider the provision of the King's speech to be read in the
Nation's Parliament on the previous day. It was but a year since Annie
Kenney had set off to rouse London and since Mrs. Pankhurst had feared
that we should neither fill the Caxton Hall nor induce a body of women
to march for the sake of a vote through the London streets, but the
tickets were now sold off so rapidly that the Exeter Hall in the Strand
was also requisitioned, and we could now firmly rely on hundreds of
women who were ready and eager, not merely to walk in procession, but
if need be to risk imprisonment for the Cause.
Parliament met on Tuesday the 12th, and we soon learnt that the King's
speech had made no mention of Votes for Women. Therefore when the
Women's Parliament met at three o'clock next day, it did so ready for
decisive action. Mrs. Pankhurst was in the Chair, and throughout the
proceedings there were manifestations of an enthusiasm such as the
women of our time had before then never learnt to show. A Resolution
expressive of indignation that Votes for Women had been omitted from
the King's speech and calling upon the House of Commons to insist that
precedence should be given to such a measure, was moved in stirring
words and carried with every demonstration of fervent eagerness. A
motion that the resolution should be taken to the Prime Minister by a
deputation from the meeting was greeted with cheering and waving of
handkerchiefs. Then the watchword, "Rise up women!" was sounded, and
the answer came in a great unanimous shout, "Now," while hundreds of
women volunteers ready for Parliament or Prison sprang to their feet.
Mrs. Despard was chosen to lead the deputation, and, as each woman
marched out of the Caxton Hall, a copy of the Resolution for the Prime
Minister was put into her hand. We formed up in orderly procession,
and, amid the cheers of the thousands of men and women who had gathered
in sympathy, and with police walking in front of us, we marched into
Victoria Street and on towards the House of Commons.
It was cold but a shimmering dainty day, the sky a delicate rain-washed
blue and the sunshine gleaming on the fine gilded points on the roof of
the tall clock tower. We stepped out smartly and all seemed to be going
well, but when those who were in front reached the green in front of
the Abbey, a body of police barred their way and an Inspector called
to them to turn back, and ordered his men to break up the procession.
The police strode through and through our ranks, but the women at once
united again and pressed bravely on. A little further we went thus,
when suddenly, a body of mounted police came riding up. In an instant
Mrs. Despard and several others in the front rank were arrested, and
the troopers were urging their horses into the midst of the women
behind, scattering them right and left.
Still we strove to reach our destination, and returned again and again.
Those of us who rushed from the roadway on to the pavement were pressed
by the horses closer and closer against the walls and railings until
at last we retreated or were forced away by the constables on foot.
Those of us who took refuge in doorways were dragged roughly down the
steps and hurled back in front of the horses. When even this failed to
banish us, the foot constables rushed at us and, catching us fiercely
by the shoulders, turned us round again and then seizing us by the back
of the neck and thumping us cruelly between the shoulders forced us at
a running pace along the streets until we were far from the House of
Commons. They had been told to drive us away and to make as few arrests
as possible. Still we returned again, until at last sixty-five women
and two men, all of them bruised and dishevelled, had been taken to
the police station, and those who had not been arrested were almost
fainting from fatigue. Then, after ten o'clock, the police succeeded in
clearing the approaches to the House of Commons, and the mounted men
were left galloping about in the empty square till midnight, when the
House rose.
In spite of the fierce battle to keep them out, fifteen of the
Suffragettes succeeded by strategy in making their way into the
Strangers' Lobby of the House of Commons and at about six o'clock
attempted to hold a meeting there. The police, of course, rushed to put
them out and, in the confusion that ensued one of the women succeeded
in getting past the barriers and making her way down the passage
leading to the beautiful white inner lobby which opens into the sacred
chamber of debate. She had just reached the first set of swing-doors
when a Member of Parliament dashed up and slammed them against her
with such force that she was thrown to the ground and carried out in a
fainting condition.
Members of Parliament could scarcely fail to have been impressed by the
extraordinary scenes which had taken place, and when the adjournment
of the House was moved that night a Unionist Member, Mr. Claud Hay,
asked the Home Secretary whether it had been necessary to inconvenience
its Members by surrounding Parliament with a body of police, both upon
horse and foot, as great as though it had been a fortress instead of a
deliberative assembly. It appeared to him, he said, that Mr. Gladstone
was afraid of the women, but they were entitled to make a protest even
if it were not agreeable to Members of Parliament, and there was no
need to brow-beat them by using force. Mr. Gladstone replied that he
had very little knowledge of what had been going on outside the House,
but Mr. Claud Hay interrupted him with, "Then you ought to have!" At
that he hesitated and changed his tone, saying that it was the police
who were responsible for keeping open the approaches to the House,
that they had only done their duty, and that he hoped they would
continue to do it in the same way.
Next morning all the world was talking of the mêlée, and in the
newspapers there were long accounts and startling headlines describing
the scenes that had taken place. These were very much more favourable
to the women than any which had been published hitherto, for, though
the Press was still far from admitting the extreme urgency of the cause
of Women's Suffrage, or the need for the militant tactics as a means of
obtaining the Parliamentary vote, still a large section of both Press
and public were unanimous in condemning the Government for the violent
measures which it had employed to suppress the women's deputation. Many
compared the sending out of mounted police against a procession of
unarmed women to the employment of Cossacks in Russia, and the _Liberal
Daily Chronicle_ published a cartoon called "The London Cossack" which
showed a portly policeman riding off with a trophy of ladies' hats.
At ten o'clock on Thursday morning, January 14th, the fifty-seven women
and the two men who had been arrested on the previous day appeared at
the Westminster Police Court. The women were put in one of the side
rooms, and then a band of policemen filed in and each one identified
his prisoner. For most of the women this was a first visit to the
police court, and, though many of them were severely bruised by the
previous day's encounter, they were all determined to make the best
of the experience and to dwell, as far as possible, upon the humorous
side of the situation. Whilst the Suffragettes were ready to forgive,
the constables seemed mostly anxious to forget the violence, and
many of the men asked their captives to give them the round white
"Votes for Women" buttons which they were wearing as mementoes of the
women's famous "raid" on the House of Commons. After waiting until the
drunkards and pickpockets had been disposed of, the Suffragettes were
taken into the Court one or two at a time. Christabel Pankhurst, as
organiser of the Demonstration was, at her own request, the first to
be placed in the dock. She explained clearly that many of our members
had suffered very seriously, but that the W. S. P. U. wished to fix
the blame for what had occurred, not upon the police, but upon the
Government that had dictated the use of these measures for clearing
the women away. If the Government refused to take "the only just,
simple and proper way out of the difficulty--that of giving women
their undoubted right to vote," she said, "the responsibility must be
theirs, and if lives are lost in this campaign the Liberal Government
will be directly responsible. One thing is certain; there can be no
going back for us, and more will happen if we do not get justice." Mr.
Curtis Bennett, the magistrate, here intervened, saying with what he
evidently thought was unanswerable firmness, that the women undoubtedly
were responsible for all the trouble, that there were other means of
obtaining votes; and that these disorderly scenes in the streets must
be stopped. "They can be stopped," she retorted, "but only in one way."
He looked at her sternly, and "twenty shillings or fourteen days,"
was his sole reply. Then she was hurried away, and, in an incredibly
short space of time, fifty-four Suffragettes had been tried and
sentenced to undergo punishment varying from ten shillings or seven
days' imprisonment to forty shillings or one month. Forty shillings or
one month's imprisonment had also been imposed on a working man, Mr.
Edward Croft, who had been arrested for trying to defend one of the
women in Parliament Square. All those who had been convicted refused to
pay their fines and decided to go to prison, and whilst Mr. Croft was
removed to Pentonville, we Suffragettes were taken away in the van to
Holloway Gaol.
On arriving at the prison we found that, as was now the rule, most of
our number were to be treated as first class misdemeanants, though
some few, without any apparent reason were to be placed in the second
division. Those of us who had been there some months before now found
that several minor innovations had been introduced since our last
visit to Holloway. When we had originally been put in the first class,
Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, who was a vegetarian, was daily served with
the usual prison diet, and though she was obliged to leave the meat,
no extra vegetables were allowed her, and she was obliged to exist
on her potatoes and bread. Now a special dietary had been introduced
for vegetarians, which consisted at this season of an alternation of
carrots and onions, with occasional rather stale eggs as a substitute
for meat, and milk, night and morning, instead of cocoa and tea.
Butter was sometimes allowed by the doctor's special order. Now that
so large a number of us occupied adjoining cells in one corridor and
were sent out to exercise together apart from the other prisoners,
the authorities found it difficult to enforce the full rigour of the
prison régime. They found it difficult to prevent our speaking to
each other occasionally when we stood together in line waiting to be
marched to exercise or chapel; they could scarcely stop the tapping out
conversations on the cell walls which was carried on by neighbouring
Suffragettes. Sometimes, when the wardresses were off duty, one of our
number would strike up a hymn or march to which words suitable to our
movement had been adapted. The others would join in chorus; and when
the officers came hurrying back it would be some moments before silence
could be restored.
For one cause or another many of us were sent to the hospital, some
being placed in a ward with some twenty or thirty other prisoners,
others in separate hospital cells.
With the exception of Mrs. Despard and myself all the Suffragettes were
released at the end of the first fortnight, but our sentences did not
expire until a week later. A procession had been organised to welcome
our comrades, and a band had played for an hour outside the prison
gates. It is difficult to describe the effect upon ourselves which was
created by the music. We knew that it was being played by our friends.
We felt almost as though they were speaking to us, and to hospital
prisoners who are not even allowed to attend service in the chapel,
the very sound of the music in that dreary place was extraordinarily
impressive. It made one's pulses throb and filled one's eyes with tears.
The poor ordinary prisoners were filled with excitement and delight and
when we were out at exercise with them on the day before our release,
woman after woman contrived to walk for a few moments either before
or after one or other of us in the line and to ask if we also would
be met by a band. "How splendid for you!" said one of the girls to me
wistfully. "I only wish I had friends to meet me. But I am glad for
you." "We are looking forward to the band, but we shall be sorry to
lose you," another said.
Whilst so many of us had been in prison, a by-election had taken
place in South Aberdeen, where Mrs. Pankhurst, at the head of the
Suffragettes' forces, had vigorously opposed the Government candidate
whose majority had fallen by more than 4,000 votes.
The figures were:--
G. B. Esslemont (L.) 3,779
R. McNeill (C.) 3,412
F. Bramley (Soc.) 1,740
_____
367
At the General Election the figures had been:--
J. Bryce (L.) 6,780
W. G. Black (U.) 2,332
_____
8,448
The Suffragists, too, had not been inactive, for Mrs. Henry Fawcett,
and four of her colleagues, had written to the Prime Minister asking
that they might be allowed to plead the cause of Woman's Suffrage at
the Bar of the House. They pointed out that in 1688, Anne, the widow
of Edward Fitz Harris, who was executed for treason in 1681, had been
allowed to speak for herself and her children at the Bar, and that
Mrs. Clarke, mistress of the Duke of York, had been summoned thither
to give evidence in regard to the charges of corruption against the
Duke. Nevertheless, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman refused to grant their
request on the ground that there was no precedent for women to appear
at the Bar of the House in support of a petition.
Meanwhile, since the so-called "Raid" on the House that had led to our
imprisonment, candid friends had been constantly telling us that we had
entirely alienated the sympathy of those who had hitherto supported
the enfranchisement of women. Yet, even whilst the "Raid" had been in
progress, a very much larger number of Parliamentary representatives
were agreeing to give their places in the private Members' ballot to
a Woman's Suffrage Bill than had ever done so before. When the result
of the ballot became known, it was found, that for the first time in
the history of the movement, the fortunate member who had secured the
coveted first place out of 670 was willing to devote it to introducing
a measure to give votes to women. It was a Liberal member, Mr.
Dickinson, who had won the first place and had decided to introduce the
Women's Enfranchisement Bill. The anti-Suffragists at once began to
work actively against the measure and the first Women's Anti-Suffrage
Society that had ever been formed was inaugurated to oppose it. Two
petitions against the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, one of them said
to be signed by 21,000 and the other by 16,500 persons, were presented
to Parliament on March 5th and March 22nd. They were heralded by
the jubilations of our opponents but when the petitions came to be
examined they were rejected by the Petitions Committee of Parliament
as "informal." This was because the separate sheets upon which the
signatures had been written were not each headed by the prayer against
the granting of Women's Suffrage, and there was consequently no
evidence to prove that the signatories had known for what purpose their
names were being collected. Afterwards Mr. J. M. Robertson examined the
Anti-Suffrage Petitions and reported that "whole batches of signatures
had been written in by a single hand," that "the batch work began on
the very first sheets," and that it appeared as though the petitions
"had been got up wholesale in this fashion." Mr. J. H. Wilson, M.P.,
Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Petitions, afterwards
stated in the House of Commons, that the names of whole families of
persons had undoubtedly been written in by the same hand. But even had
these petitions been so evidently authentic as to have been accepted
by Parliament without question, they would still have been quite
insignificant as compared with the great petitions and memorials in
support of Votes for Women, which had been presented year after year
since 1866. But the days in which women might have won or lost the
Parliamentary vote by petitioning had long gone by, and all politically
minded women knew this.
For a Member of Parliament to declare himself in open opposition
to Votes for Women, rendered him extremely unpopular, many of the
anti-Suffragists, especially of the Liberal Party, now pretended that
their reason for objecting to Mr. Dickinson's Bill was that they did
not consider it to be a democratic measure. They declared that it would
"disfranchise married women" would give the vote to women of wealth
and property only and would exclude all those who had to work for
their own living. So emphatically was this statement made that it was
difficult to convince many people that the measure in question was the
old equal Women's Enfranchisement Bill, and that there was no intention
of introducing some new-fangled, fancy franchise. Yet as a matter of
fact, Mr. Dickinson's Bill contained only a slight alteration in the
wording, though not in the sense, of the last clause of the original
measure. Instead of the phrase "any law or usage to the contrary
notwithstanding," which occurred in the original Bill and was intended
to strike at the disability of coverture which affects married women,
the words, "A woman shall not be disqualified by reason of marriage
from being so registered and voting, notwithstanding any law or custom
to the contrary," were substituted.
On moving the Second Reading of the Bill, Mr. Dickinson dealt
especially with the objections of those who declared that the measure
was anti-democratic. He stated, that in 1904, the women electors in his
constituency of North St. Pancras had numbered 1,014. Of these women
three per cent. had belonged to the wealthy upper class, thirty-seven
per cent. to the middle class, and sixty per cent. to the working
class; many of the latter being exceedingly poor.
When asked by the Secretary of the Local Women's Suffrage Society in
his constituency of Dunfermline, whether he would support the second
reading of the Bill, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had replied, "I will
with much pleasure give my support to Mr. Dickinson's Bill when it
comes before the House of Commons." Now that the moment for fulfilling
his promise had arrived, however, the Prime Minister threw cold water
upon the measure. "I am not very warmly enamoured of it," he said, and
after casting doubt upon the accuracy of Mr. Dickinson's figures he
added, that in his opinion, the Bill would merely "enfranchise a small
minority of well-to-do women." Where the Prime Minister had led, the
rank and file Anti-Suffragist Liberal Members of Parliament followed.
Though they had neither facts nor figures of their own to quote in
support of their contention, and, in face of both of Mr. Dickinson's
figures and Mr. Snowden's reminder that the I. L. P. census of 1904 had
shown that eighty-two per cent. of the women on the Municipal Register
belonged to the working classes, they still continued to assert that
only "a handful of propertied women" could obtain votes under this
Bill. At the same time, although they themselves belonged almost
exclusively to the middle and upper classes, they persistently stated
their belief in the dangerous influence of the women who belonged to
those same classes.
As the afternoon wore on attempts were made to move the closure of
the debate in order that a vote on the Bill might be taken, but the
Speaker refused to accept the resolution, and at five o'clock Mr. Rees,
the Liberal Member for Montgomery Burghs talked the measure out after
a five hours' debate. There was no protest from the Ladies' Gallery
this time as the Suffragettes had all been rigorously excluded, but
both Suffragettes and Suffragists combined in urging the Government
to give another day for the discussion of the Bill. This they curtly
refused, and though the Suffragettes had not agreed to accept the
decision as final and intended to renew their demand until it was
granted, Mr. Dickinson shortly afterwards withdrew his Bill in order
to make way for a Women's Suffrage Resolution, a place for which had
been obtained by Sir Charles M'Laren. No sooner had Mr. Dickinson's
Bill been withdrawn and Sir Charles M'Laren's Resolution set down in
its stead than it was blocked by a discreditable move on the part of a
well known anti-Suffragist, Mr. (afterwards Sir) Maurice Levy. Taking
advantage of a rule of the House of Commons by which a Resolution
cannot be proceeded with, if a Bill dealing with a similar subject has
been introduced, this Liberal member now brought forward a Bill which
he never intended to be discussed to give a vote to every adult man and
woman. Therefore Sir Charles M'Laren's Resolution was thus entirely
shelved. This was not by any means the first time that the trick had
been used in the case of a Women's Suffrage motion, but the device was
acknowledged to be an unjustifiable abuse of the Procedure rules. Mr.
Levy refused even the Speaker's request to withdraw his dummy Bill.
Protests were raised on all sides of the House, because it was realised
that, if the practice of bringing in dummy Bills to prevent discussion
were to become common, the right of private Members to introduce
Resolutions would be entirely destroyed. A Resolution embodying this
point of view was therefore agreed to, and Mr. Asquith promised that
the Government would take action in the matter.[20] Though the
question was raised again three months later, however, the promise
was never kept, and though the general feeling was that Mr. Levy had
offended against the recognised etiquette of Parliament, it must be
remembered, that, as the _Standard_ put it "if the Government had
chosen to exercise pressure Mr. Levy would have proved complaisant."[21]
But after all this was only a Resolution, and, realising that the
Government, with practically all the time of Parliament at its
disposal, could easily provide the few days necessary for carrying into
Law a Woman's Suffrage measure, the Women's Social and Political Union
were now preparing for further militant action.
On the day of the talking out of Mr. Dickinson's Bill a meeting had
been held by the Union in the Exeter Hall at which Mrs. Pethick
Lawrence had called for subscriptions to inaugurate a £20,000 campaign
fund, and over £1,400 had been sent up to the platform during the
meeting. On March 20th, 1907, the second Women's Parliament assembled
in the Caxton Hall.[22] This Parliament was specially characterised
by the large numbers of delegates from the provinces, amongst whom
was a contingent of Lancashire Cotton Operatives, led by Annie Kenney
and wearing their clogs and shawls. As before, the decision to carry
a resolution to the Prime Minister was heralded with an enthusiasm
that was almost fiercely overwhelming. Then, when Christabel Pankhurst
called out from the platform, "Who will lead the deputation?" Lady
Harberton, for many years a Suffragist of the old school, eagerly
answered "I," and at once hundreds of women sprang up to follow her. As
soon as the deputation gained the street the police began to push and
hustle them, but though overwhelmingly outnumbered, they bravely strove
hour after hour to carry out their purpose. Rigid lines of police drawn
up across the approaches to the House prevented their even getting near
to it, and though at one point a number of Lancashire mill hands drove
up in a couple of waggonettes, and, being mistaken for sightseers,
succeeded in reaching the Strangers' Entrance, they were discovered and
beaten back.
Meanwhile Caxton Hall was kept open all the afternoon and on into the
evening, and the disabled women were constantly returning thither. They
brought with them the news that numbers of women had been arrested, and
that though Lady Harberton had at last got into the House of Commons,
her petition had been ignored. Christabel Pankhurst then advised any
who might succeed in entering Parliament to take sterner measures,--to
rush, if they could, into the sacred Chamber of debate itself, to
seat themselves upon the Government bench and demand a hearing. "If
possible," she cried, "seize the mace, and you will be the Cromwells of
the twentieth century!" The women rushed back with renewed zeal.
It was now dark, and, as the crowds grew denser and denser and the
police turned on them more angrily, many Members of Parliament,
including Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Lloyd George, came out to watch
the scene. Some showed distress at the way in which the women were
being treated, but others regarded it as a joke. Many of the women were
roughly handled and some were seriously hurt, but, speaking generally,
the violence used against them was not so great as on the previous
February 13th. It was said that no fewer than a thousand extra police
were especially drafted into Parliament Square to guard the House of
Commons.
Amongst those who had been arrested were Dr. Mabel Hardy, Miss Naici
Peters, a Norwegian painter and a friend of Ibsen, Miss Cemino
Folliero, a portrait painter from Rome and Miss Constance Clyde, a well
known Australian journalist and novelist.
Next day when the women were brought up before Mr. Horace Smith
at the Westminster Police Court, Mr. Muskett, who appeared to
prosecute on behalf of the police, protested that the Suffragettes
had hitherto been treated with "the utmost indulgence," and begged
that they should in future be dealt with "as ordinary law-breakers."
Therefore the magistrate gave to most of the women exactly the same
sentences--varying from twenty shillings or fourteen days to forty
shillings or one month's imprisonment--that had been meted out to
their comrades on the last occasion. Miss Patricia Woodlock and Mrs.
Ada Chatterton, the former having only left Holloway on the expiration
of her previous month's imprisonment one week before, were, as "old
offenders," sentenced to one month's imprisonment without the option of
a fine. Mrs. Mary Leigh though this was her first arrest, also received
a month's imprisonment because, by hanging a Votes for Women banner
over the edge of the dock, she annoyed the magistrate, who said that he
did not think it "a decent thing to wave a flag in a court of justice."
Thus as a result of two attempts within the short space of five weeks
to carry Resolutions to the Prime Minister from meetings of women
held in the Caxton Hall, one hundred and thirty women, who were
agitating for an eminently just and absolutely simple reform, had been
imprisoned. Even to the next generation this state of things will
appear monstrous, how much more so to those that are to follow in the
dim future.
FOOTNOTES:
[20] When Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, introduced a Resolution dealing
with the Veto of the House of Lords, three months afterwards, Lord
Robert Cecil, introduced a Dummy Bill for the abolition of the House of
Lords' Veto in order to prevent Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's motion
being discussed, and thus to teach the anti-Suffragists that their own
blocking tactics could be used against themselves. As Lord Robert Cecil
came forward with his Bill, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, knowing what
he was going to do, begged him not to introduce it, in order that the
Government's Resolution might not be delayed. If Lord Robert Cecil
would not agree, the Prime Minister threatened to call a sitting of
the House for the next Saturday--the day which had been fixed for the
King's garden party--in order to pass a special motion to allow the
Government's Resolution to be proceeded with. Still Lord Robert Cecil
protested that the Government must draw up the proposed Standing Order
or he would insist upon introducing his Bill and Mr. Balfour supported
him saying, "You can cook up a land Bill in three days, yet you cannot
draft a Standing Order in three months." In the end the Government
again promised to make such action as Mr. Levy's impossible, and Lord
Robert Cecil withdrew his Bill, but the promise has not yet been
redeemed.
[21] So far from exercising pressure upon Mr. Levy, the Liberal
Government shortly afterwards gave him a knighthood. The failure to
carry out their pledge, which I have referred to in the previous note,
clearly shows that the Government did not in any way disapprove of
Mr. Levy's action and were anxious that the possibility of its being
repeated should remain.
[22] Shortly after this Second Women's Parliament, a proposal was
raised that the Westminster City Council should prevent the Hall
being let to the Women's Social and Political Union. The Chairman of
the General Purposes Committee then stated that this course would be
adopted if any damage were done to the hall itself. Up to the present
time no further attempt has been made to prevent the holding of the
Women's Parliament in the Hall.